World Politics

[Anonymous]

Some days you're the pitcher and some days you're the catcher.
BTW. I am at my shop at this moment, finishing up some stuff and enjoying a delicious Ommegang Abbey Ale. MMMmmmm.

Nice. Just finishing up a nice bottle of petite syrah. Please don't say anything about the wine drinking or my reputation on the beer thread will go to hell.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oh for eff's sake. When did I ever say zero regs was the ticket?

Perceptions are in fact reality.

You are right, you may have never said none, but best case you have always argued for less. Enough 'less' makes none , excuse me for not knowing when to stop.
My point is that the only thing that stops corporations from running roughshod is government regulation and that everything when it comes to influencing politicians is slanted in favor of those corporations (remember the recent Supremes decision?), so more government regulation is a good thing at this point in time in our country. Don't worry because the lack of interest that these major corporations have in helping your business is equal to the lack of interest that the federal government has in controlling your business. They have much bigger fish to fry.

 

[buckwheat]

Buck, I was called hopeless earlier. I hereby pass that moniker on to you as you so richly deserve it. Unbelievable... really.

Bro, your arguments are completely lame.

You said that I was Monday Morning Quarterbacking and Chris E attempted to back you up with his gift of the Challenger disaster which demonstrated that the disaster was completely avoidable. You'll argue anything so there's basically no point in going on with you.

 

[buckwheat]

blah, blah, blah, as HJ would say.

If your point is that the Challenger should have been prevented, then I cannot argue that point. The facts fell where they did.

I concede that the o-ring issue was known beforehand and should have been taken into consideration. I am hesitant to blame the manager instead of the culture. And, in a roundabout way it is what this argument about the oil spill started on with Scot.....regulation to force an activity in a business that is after the bottom line. Capitalistic business is inherently averse to anything that makes it do something that doesn't add to the bottom line or in NASAs case public image. It's not all that different.

Realize I am saying that most accidents in any industry can be prevented IF somebody contains ultimate knowledge and is unfazed by any influence, then maybe we can find common ground. That is where we differ....you take the absolutist position that black/white, right/wrong is totally clear and always should hold sway and is known beforehand in the decision making process, and thus accidents shouldn't happen. Alot of times it is not black/white like you wish. Probability, economic, business culture, and political considerations do unfortunately factor into decision making sometimes. And, I am not even talking about the material/equipment failure aspect. We are talking about humans here, not machines. If your goal is perfection, then you will be looking for a long time. I consider myself a good engineer but I am capable of mistakes. Hopefully sometime in the future I will not be your pinata on an internet forum.....

All knowledge about a particular widget is unknown beforehand. It just doesn't work that way. You can disect this post in 20 different ways, but that is just the way it is.

I'm not taking any absolutist position at all. You use these absolute arguments as strawmen. The whole thing, if you look back at the thread, was that I was accused of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and I conclusively proved I did no such thing.

No one is talking about good faith mistakes here. We are talking about risk assessment lapses and lack of preparedness that rise to the level of negligence and criminality.

My goal is not perfection in these issues here. That is your strawman that you've set up to argue your points. You've completely distorted mine.

You talk about probabilities and you cited the Challenger. Those probabilities of disaster were fraudulently raised to gigantic improbabilities when the engineers testified that their understanding of a catastrophic event was about 1 in 200 launches.

The whole lesson of the Challenger was the prior knowledge and the foreseeability of the accident despite your making crap up to the contrary.

I challenge you to find any case where these types of negligent coverups did not exist prior to a disaster. I venture to say it will be very difficult and the overwhelming majority of industrial catastrophes were entirely foreseeable and preventable like the recent mine explosion. There were literally hundreds of safety violations, so please stop with your distortions.

Considering this BP leak is coming from 5,000 feet below the Gulf's surface I'll bet their risk assessment and measures to deal with accidents will be shown to be completely inadequate and a surprise to no one in the know.

 

[buckwheat]

You two are once again spending a lot of energy arguing for what are not conflicting points of view. Although I agree with most of what he is saying I have to lay most of the blame (this time) on Buckwheat, if only because he is being the most argumentative in this case. Buck is saying that with more regulation this accident didn't have to happen and Chris is saying that this accident has already happened so nothing we can do about it, but more regulation would be good because without it corps. will always do the expedient thing. Even Scott is now waffling and saying (some) regulation is a good thing.
We are all in agreement here...........next problem.

I'm being argumentative because it takes my truth a long time to catch up with the continual casual lies and distortions of these guys.

I agree that these industries are underregulated but my main point is that it's so easily provable and not just in hindsight.

I've challenged both of them to come up with any man made disaster that wasn't forseeable. The Air France that crashed off the coast of Brazil may be one but stuff like the mine disaster or the Buffalo commuter plane crash were so obviously avoidable, it's disgusting.

 

[rhubroma]

So long as the government caters to the demands of the multi-national corporations, the regulations, so called, won't be as effective as they would otherwise be if social and environmental interests were the primary considerations. BP and the other oil companies have behaved as awfully as the Wall Street banks, also with Washington's palcet consent, having continually assured us "don't worry about anything, we'll take care of it and nothing will happen" and then came the drama.

There is an inherent conflict of interests between the profit objectives of big business and governments need to regulate them for the communal safety, and the former has naturally been winning out by a long shot. A better comparison between disasters, following this economic logic, is Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft, on January 31, 2000 in the Pacific Ocean north of Anacapa Island, California. The two pilots, three cabin crewmembers, and 83 passengers on board were all instantly killed and the aircraft was destroyed.

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and catastrophic failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The cause was stated to have been a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines's insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly. The truth is that the repairman responsible for controlling the plane knew the aircraft was in danger of crashing, that the part under discussion was worn down to the point of it being at risk of cracking which it eventually did, but decided to not recommend changing the horizontal stabilizer because to do so would have meant his immediately being fired due to the exorbitant costs of the part. I know this because of an aquaintance I have with a jet engine engineer from Boeing, though you would not have read this in the newspaper articles. Consequently the airplains we fly are often maintained just to the buget amounts conceded by the aircraft companies where expenses are spared even at the risk of a disaster because profit margins don't allow otherwise according to the business logic.

No system is fullproof, but the one in operation we have now is filled with loopholes and needs to be totally re-thought. Thus Scott So Cal's arguments to protect the corporations are not only base falsifications of fact for instrumental goals, but pernicious when the social and environmental consequences are considered in proper measure. That thousands of "accidents" have not occured under the current system, can not become an acceptable apology for the real disasters that have. One only needs to think of Union Carbide pesticide plant Bophar disaster in India on 3 December 1984. Methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas was accidentally released from the plant, exposing more than 500,000 people to MIC and other chemicals. The first official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release, though this is surly false. Others estimate 8,000-10,000 died within 72 hours and 25,000 have since died from gas-related diseases, whereas 40,000 more were permanently disabled, maimed, or rendered subject to numerous grave illnesses; 521,000 exposed in all. As of 2010 no one has yet been prosecuted for the disaster. Here the so called "accident" was in truth caused by the appalling conditions of the pesticide plant, as if all that mattered was cheap labor exploitation and profit margins. Incidents of the like mean that the muilti-nationals and the governments have the deaths of thousands of innocents on thier consciences, whereas the current BP scenario and the like are responsible for the befouling of nature itself with Ariostian melodrama, as if a moderns version of the allegory codified in Orlando Furioso.

On a more personal note I have a grandfather who is more dear to me than almost anybody else who is dying a slow death as they say from asbestosis, a chronic inflammatory and fibrotic medical condition affecting the parenchymal tissue of the lungs caused by the inhalation and retention of water resulting in shortness of breath, lung infection and ultimately death. This because the carbon steel factory where he worked in the 70's and 80's was filled with asbestos and the factory owners didn't want to foot the bill to clean the work environment. There was so much asbestos in the workplace that a thick film of it had encrusted the windows. Nothing was done about the lethal situation for years, the regulations were never enforced, and so one who believed in the so called work ethic, served his so called country during WWII and the Korean conflict; has been litterally asfixiated, slowly and under torture, by his work environment so called and by his country as it is regarded.

The situation off the coast of Louisiana is thus undefendable, unexcusable and ultimately unpardonable, and anybody that doesn't say so is either a liar or a hypocrite.

 

[ChrisE]

Anybody can find accidents happening all over the world, in various types of economies and under various types of political leadership.

Got a long winded explanation for that?

Oh, lookeee here.

http://www.france24.com/en/20091120...sion-trial-acquittal-azf-france-total-justice

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8370150.stm

That despicable US corporation, uhh I mean French corporation Total won an appeal in the corrupt US, uhhh I mean French court system.

Who'd have thunk it?

 

[Anonymous]

Bro, your arguments are completely lame.

You said that I was Monday Morning Quarterbacking and Chris E attempted to back you up with his gift of the Challenger disaster which demonstrated that the disaster was completely avoidable. You'll argue anything so there's basically no point in going on with you.

Well, you defend your position. I'll give you that.

The thing is, Chris was using the Challenger as an analogy. You balsted him for using a bad analogy never bothering to address his point.

 

[Anonymous]

So long as the government caters to the demands of the multi-national corporations, the regulations, so called, won't be as effective as they would otherwise be if social and environmental interests were the primary considerations. BP and the other oil companies have behaved as awfully as the Wall Street banks, also with Washington's palcet consent, having continually assured us "don't worry about anything, we'll take care of it and nothing will happen" and then came the drama.

There is an inherent conflict of interests between the profit objectives of big business and governments need to regulate them for the communal safety, and the former has naturally been winning out by a long shot. A better comparison between disasters, following this economic logic, is Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft, on January 31, 2000 in the Pacific Ocean north of Anacapa Island, California. The two pilots, three cabin crewmembers, and 83 passengers on board were all instantly killed and the aircraft was destroyed.

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and catastrophic failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The cause was stated to have been a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines's insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly. The truth is that the repairman responsible for controlling the plane knew the aircraft was in danger of crashing, that the part under discussion was worn down to the point of it being at risk of cracking which it eventually did, but decided to not recommend changing the horizontal stabilizer because to do so would have meant his immediately being fired due to the exorbitant costs of the part. I know this because of an aquaintance I have with a jet engine engineer from Boeing, though you would not have read this in the newspaper articles. Consequently the airplains we fly are often maintained just to the buget amounts conceded by the aircraft companies where expenses are spared even at the risk of a disaster because profit margins don't allow otherwise according to the business logic.

No system is fullproof, but the one in operation we have now is filled with loopholes and needs to be totally re-thought. Thus Scott So Cal's arguments to protect the corporations are not only base falsifications of fact for instrumental goals, but pernicious when the social and environmental consequences are considered in proper measure. That thousands of "accidents" have not occured under the current system, can not become an acceptable apology for the real disasters that have. One only needs to think of Union Carbide pesticide plant Bophar disaster in India on 3 December 1984. Methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas was accidentally released from the plant, exposing more than 500,000 people to MIC and other chemicals. The first official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release, though this is surly false. Others estimate 8,000-10,000 died within 72 hours and 25,000 have since died from gas-related diseases, whereas 40,000 more were permanently disabled, maimed, or rendered subject to numerous grave illnesses; 521,000 exposed in all. As of 2010 no one has yet been prosecuted for the disaster. Here the so called "accident" was in truth caused by the appalling conditions of the pesticide plant, as if all that mattered was cheap labor exploitation and profit margins. Incidents of the like mean that the muilti-nationals and the governments have the deaths of thousands of innocents on thier consciences, whereas the current BP scenario and the like are responsible for the befouling of nature itself with Ariostian melodrama, as if a moderns version of the allegory codified in Orlando Furioso.

On a more personal note I have a grandfather who is more dear to me than almost anybody else who is dying a slow death as they say from asbestosis, a chronic inflammatory and fibrotic medical condition affecting the parenchymal tissue of the lungs caused by the inhalation and retention of water resulting in shortness of breath, lung infection and ultimately death. This because the carbon steel factory where he worked in the 70's and 80's was filled with asbestos and the factory owners didn't want to foot the bill to clean the work environment. There was so much asbestos in the workplace that a thick film of it had encrusted the windows. Nothing was done about the lethal situation for years, the regulations were never enforced, and so one who believed in the so called work ethic, served his so called country during WWII and the Korean conflict; has been litterally asfixiated, slowly and under torture, by his work environment so called and by his country as it is regarded.

The situation off the coast of Louisiana is thus undefendable, unexcusable and ultimately unpardonable, and anybody that doesn't say so is either a liar or a hypocrite.

Sorry about your Grandfather. Terrible situation.

One can eliminate oil spills by eliminating oil exploration. One can eliminate airline disasters by eliminating air travel. Same for mining accidents.

Regulations are necessary. Right now BP is claiming equipment failure. How do we regulate for that? At what point will you accept that unforseen accidents happen?

 

[Anonymous]

You are right, you may have never said none, but best case you have always argued for less. Enough 'less' makes none , excuse me for not knowing when to stop.
My point is that the only thing that stops corporations from running roughshod is government regulation and that everything when it comes to influencing politicians is slanted in favor of those corporations (remember the recent Supremes decision?), so more government regulation is a good thing at this point in time in our country. Don't worry because the lack of interest that these major corporations have in helping your business is equal to the lack of interest that the federal government has in controlling your business. They have much bigger fish to fry.

<sigh>, So more regs makes us safer? I'm thinking that effective regs might be the way forward. We have volumes of regs in the financial world and yet... there was a meltdown The SEC was busy chasing individual producers fining them for continuing education infractions and missed Madoff.

Has it occured to you that those writing the regs do not necessarily have the public's best interest at heart?

At my core I have a dis-trust of this and all governments. I don't have faith in elected officials who have whored themselves to industry , big and small, to be able to regulate those that paid for their ticket. Yet when catastrophies happen, the govt shares no responsibility whatsoever. As far as I know, Chris Cox is still walking around political circles. Senators Dodd and Frank are still very much involved in writing new financial and banking regs (for just one head-scratching example).

Why some on the forum have such faith in govt is beyond me. We already know business is corruptable (and corrupt in many cases) but somehow have faith in politicians which are corruptable (and corrupt in many cases).

 

[Anonymous]

I challenge you to find any case where these types of negligent coverups did not exist prior to a disaster. I venture to say it will be very difficult and the overwhelming majority of industrial catastrophes were entirely foreseeable and preventable like the recent mine explosion. There were literally hundreds of safety violations, so please stop with your distortions.

The thing I believe you are ignoring here is the that there is a level of probability to any given situation, and that at some point you have to assess at which level you need to stop regulation based on profitability. Just because someone can foresee an event does not mean the probability of that event warrants specific regulation or expense because the line here is infinite in terms of probability of an even occurring. There are weaknesses in any system, and there will always be failures at the point of some of those weaknesses. It is important after such an event to assess the measures that can be taken to prevent a failure at that exact point of weakness, and obviously it is also incumbent upon people who are experts in those systems to address weaknesses beforehand that present a higher probability of being the point of failure, but where so you draw the line in terms of probability exactly? Because the fact is that there is a weakness at every point (infinitely) in a system, but the probability of failure at each point is not equal. I would submit that there is a level of risk that must be accepted in dealing with any system, and that there is a level of regulation that will cause the weaknesses in that system to cease not because they have eliminated risk of failure at that weakness, but because the maintenance required by regulation of said system has become so cost inefficient that businesses cease enacting that system.

Are there any disasters in a man made system that were not foreseeable? No

Does that mean the failure at that weak point in the system was foreseen? No

Are there disasters caused by a failure at a point of weakness that were foreseen and should have been addressed beforehand? Yes

Are there disasters caused by a failure at a point of weakness that were foreseen, but the probability of said failure so small that it was not cost effective to address it? Yes

Do we need to accept risk of failure in any given system? Yes

Is it reasonable to suggest that every point of weakness in a system be addressed by regulation and corrected by the owner of that system prior to a failure at that point? No

Will risk of failure ever be eliminated in any system? No, because even the remedy to any given weakness has weaknesses itself.

Is it easier to assess the level of regulation for any given weakness following a failure than it is before said failure? Yes

Does the infinite nature of weakness make it impossible to foresee the exact point of failure in a system sometimes? Yes

Will regulation ever change that? No

Is there a point at which it becomes economically unfeasible to address address the points of weakness in a system? Yes

Will we always be somewhere on the feasible/unfeasible continuum? Yes

Will business always err towards less regulation? Yes

Will some in government err towards more regulation? Yes

Where is the balance? Well, that my friend is the eternal question.

 

[buckwheat]

Well, you defend your position. I'll give you that..

At least I can legitimately defend them.. The right wing nuts defend the indefensible, untenable positions all the time.

The thing is, Chris was using the Challenger as an analogy..[/QUOTE]

He used it as an example of the unforseeability of accidents. Turns out the whole Challenger report was that the direct contributing factors were widely known, and an entire culture of downplaying obvious risks was created.

You balsted him for using a bad analogy never bothering to address his point.

Both his and your points were that I was Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I destroyed that point.

This is like having a discussion with a two year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

 

[Anonymous]

<sigh>, So more regs makes us safer? I'm thinking that effective regs might be the way forward. We have volumes of regs in the financial world and yet... there was a meltdown The SEC was busy chasing individual producers fining them for continuing education infractions and missed Madoff.

Has it occured to you that those writing the regs do not necessarily have the public's best interest at heart?

At my core I have a dis-trust of this and all governments. I don't have faith in elected officials who have whored themselves to industry , big and small, to be able to regulate those that paid for their ticket. Yet when catastrophies happen, the govt shares no responsibility whatsoever. As far as I know, Chris Cox is still walking around political circles. Senators Dodd and Frank are still very much involved in writing new financial and banking regs (for just one head-scratching example).

Why some on the forum have such faith in govt is beyond me. We already know business is corruptable (and corrupt in many cases) but somehow have faith in politicians which are corruptable (and corrupt in many cases).

Do you not see the contradiction in your own words here? Both are corrupt, but business should be trusted more? Why? If both systems are corrupt, then why is it that one should be favored over the other? Has it ever occurred to you that in reality it is not two separate corrupt systems, but only one corrupt system? Has it ever occurred to you that it takes action in terms of both purchasing decisions and voting decisions to affect change in that system? To me, it appears that you see yourself as "of" business, and apart from government, when in reality you are a part of one single system that includes both government and business. You have choices you can make within that system to affect change, but I would bet you concentrate much more on your choices in government. You always talk about the problems of small business. Do you shop at WalMart? You have talked about the problem of debt to China, but do you buy Chinese made goods? Government is easier to point to and bemoan because the choices are easier to make because they take less effort to discover. I would be willing to bet that your voting record is much more in line with your beliefs than is your purchasing record. I would submit that is a major problem in our country.

 

[buckwheat]

The thing I believe you are ignoring here is the that there is a level of probability to any given situation,.

I'm ignoring nothing. You believe I'm ignoring something because you don't know the specifics of the situations discussed.

During the Challenger commission it was shown the the probabilities of a catastrophic event were revised downward and that the decrease of the risk probabilities was a major concern of many engineers within NASA.

and that at some point you have to assess at which level you need to stop based on profitability. Just because someone can foresee an event does not mean the probability of that event warrants specific regulation or expense ,

Good Lord! You saw that plane crash in Buffalo. The pilots were unqualified, one had to commute from Seattle to be able to fly the commuter plane. There are regs regarding qualifications, rest, etc. and the risks are extremely well known. This $hit has happened many times before and thats why it's extremely important to adhere to those regs. They are routinely and knowingly ignored with often tragic consequences.

These rest regs as well as drug and alcohol testing regs are even in place for DOT and for good reason.

because the line here is infinite in terms of probability of an even occurring. There are weaknesses in any system, and there will always be failures at the point of some of those weaknesses. It is important after such an event to assess the measures that can be taken to prevent a failure at that exact point of weakness, and obviously it is also incumbent upon people who are experts in those systems to address weaknesses beforehand that present a higher probability of being the point of failure, but where so you draw the line in terms of probability exactly? Because the fact is that there is a weakness at every point (infinitely) in a system, but the probability of failure at each point is not equal. I would submit that there is a level of risk that must be accepted in dealing with any system, and that there is a level of regulation that will cause the weaknesses in that system to cease not because they have eliminated risk of failure at that weakness, but because the maintenance required by regulation of said system has become so cost inefficient that businesses cease enacting that system.

Are there any disasters in a man made system that were not foreseeable? No

Does that mean the failure at that weak point in the system was foreseen? No

Are there disasters caused by a failure at a point of weakness that were foreseen and should have been addressed beforehand? Yes

Are there disasters caused by a failure at a point of weakness that were foreseen, but the probability of said failure so small that it was not cost effective to address it? Yes

Do we need to accept risk of failure in any given system? Yes

Is it reasonable to suggest that every point of weakness in a system be addressed by regulation and corrected by the owner of that system prior to a failure at that point? No

Will risk of failure ever be eliminated in any system? No, because even the remedy to any given weakness has weaknesses itself.

Is it easier to assess the level of regulation for any given weakness following a failure than it is before said failure? Yes

Does the infinite nature of weakness make it impossible to foresee the exact point of failure in a system sometimes? Yes

Will regulation ever change that? No

Is there a point at which it becomes economically unfeasible to address address the points of weakness in a system? Yes

Will we always be somewhere on the feasible/unfeasible continuum? Yes

Will business always err towards less regulation? Yes

Will some in government err towards more regulation? Yes

Where is the balance? Well, that my friend is the eternal question.

You really wasted that space. I'd be pretty sure that because of the industry I was in for 15 years I have a better appreciation for Govt. Regs than you do. That the balance is being attacked by one side of the political equation is no secret and it's resulted in tragic forseeable consequences. Something as simple as rest requirements for drivers and pilots. What do you think happens when a pilot, or driver of a big rig falls asleep? Most of these things are obvious and simple solutions and the Repugs don't even want to comply with these.

You realize that a hallmark of Repug administrations is to put industry lobbyists in charge of Federal agecies like OSHA and the Dept. of the Interior.

TFF, please, you're scaring me (for yoursake) by giving some rational spin to Scott like arguments.

Rhubroma was talking about his grandfather having asbestosis. You saw the aftermath of 9/11 at the Ground Zero site? There was an incredible amount of asbestos in the air along with all kinds of other $hit and yet you had EPA director Christie Whitman announcing the air was safe to breathe.

I think there were 8 people pulled out of the wreckage of the Towers. How many got sick and died from breathing in that fouled air? You don't think the construction industry is completely aware of the dangers of breathing asbestos and unknown chemicals in and yet the Bush Administration comes out with an announcement the air is fine to breathe. I guess that's an acceptable risk to you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

<sigh>, So more regs makes us safer? I'm thinking that effective regs might be the way forward. We have volumes of regs in the financial world and yet... there was a meltdown The SEC was busy chasing individual producers fining them for continuing education infractions and missed Madoff.

Has it occured to you that those writing the regs do not necessarily have the public's best interest at heart?

At my core I have a dis-trust of this and all governments. I don't have faith in elected officials who have whored themselves to industry , big and small, to be able to regulate those that paid for their ticket. Yet when catastrophies happen, the govt shares no responsibility whatsoever. As far as I know, Chris Cox is still walking around political circles. Senators Dodd and Frank are still very much involved in writing new financial and banking regs (for just one head-scratching example).

Why some on the forum have such faith in govt is beyond me. We already know business is corruptable (and corrupt in many cases) but somehow have faith in politicians which are corruptable (and corrupt in many cases).

Oh FFS, how about we agree on more effective. Obviously that is what I meant by more.
So you don't trust the corps and you don't trust the government, how do you ever sleep at night?
The pols are only as corrupt as the corps are able to make them. We don't need less government, we need better government.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you not see the contradiction in your own words here? Both are corrupt, but business should be trusted more? Why? If both systems are corrupt, then why is it that one should be favored over the other? Has it ever occurred to you that in reality it is not two separate corrupt systems, but only one corrupt system? Has it ever occurred to you that it takes action in terms of both purchasing decisions and voting decisions to affect change in that system? To me, it appears that you see yourself as "of" business, and apart from government, when in reality you are a part of one single system that includes both government and business. You have choices you can make within that system to affect change, but I would bet you concentrate much more on your choices in government. You always talk about the problems of small business. Do you shop at WalMart? You have talked about the problem of debt to China, but do you buy Chinese made goods? Government is easier to point to and bemoan because the choices are easier to make because they take less effort to discover. I would be willing to bet that your voting record is much more in line with your beliefs than is your purchasing record. I would submit that is a major problem in our country.

Both are corrupt and govt should be trusted more? At the very least there is a profit motive in business. It surley isn't perfect. Tell me what the motive is for govt to do the right thing?

I don't see myself apart from govt. What I don't get is view that more govt is always the solution (to many on this forum). Healthcare, regs, ...whatever.
It's as if people no longer have the ability to think or solve problems. Only the govt can do it, and it's always the fault of some evil business entity.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh FFS, how about we agree on more effective. Obviously that is what I meant by more.
So you don't trust the corps and you don't trust the government, how do you ever sleep at night?
The pols are only as corrupt as the corps are able to make them. We don't need less government, we need better government.

Agreed.....

 

[Anonymous]

At least I can legitimately defend them.. The right wing nuts defend the indefensible, untenable positions all the time.

The thing is, Chris was using the Challenger as an analogy..

He used it as an example of the unforseeability of accidents. Turns out the whole Challenger report was that the direct contributing factors were widely known, and an entire culture of downplaying obvious risks was created.



Both his and your points were that I was Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I destroyed that point.

This is like having a discussion with a two year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[/QUOTE]

You continue to miss the point. For your benefit the point was that neither business nor govt can know in advance every potential problem that could possibly occur.

You only destroyed the MMQ comment in your mind. It's painfully clear that your vison is 20/20 when looking at what has already happened.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm ignoring nothing. You believe I'm ignoring something because you don't know the specifics of the situations discussed.

During the Challenger commission it was shown the the probabilities of a catastrophic event were revised downward and that the decrease of the risk probabilities was a major concern of many engineers within NASA.





Good Lord! You saw that plane crash in Buffalo. The pilots were unqualified, one had to commute from Seattle to be able to fly the commuter plane. There are regs regarding qualifications, rest, etc. and the risks are extremely well known. This $hit has happened many times before and thats why it's extremely important to adhere to those regs. They are routinely and knowingly ignored with often tragic consequences.

These rest regs as well as drug and alcohol testing regs are even in place for DOT and for good reason.



You really wasted that space. I'd be pretty sure that because of the industry I was in for 15 years I have a better appreciation for Govt. Regs than you do. That the balance is being attacked by one side of the political equation is no secret and it's resulted in tragic forseeable consequences. Something as simple as rest requirements for drivers and pilots. What do you think happens when a pilot, or driver of a big rig falls asleep? Most of these things are obvious and simple solutions and the Repugs don't even want to comply with these.

You realize that a hallmark of Repug administrations is to put industry lobbyists in charge of Federal agecies like OSHA and the Dept. of the Interior.

TFF, please, you're scaring me (for yoursake) by giving some rational spin to Scott like arguments.

Rhubroma was talking about his grandfather having asbestosis. You saw the aftermath of 9/11 at the Ground Zero site? There was an incredible amount of asbestos in the air along with all kinds of other $hit and yet you had EPA director Christie Whitman announcing the air was safe to breathe.

I think there were 8 people pulled out of the wreckage of the Towers. How many got sick and died from breathing in that fouled air? You don't think the construction industry is completely aware of the dangers of breathing asbestos and unknown chemicals in and yet the Bush Administration comes out with an announcement the air is fine to breathe. I guess that's an acceptable risk to you.

Your thinking is far to black and white here. I am only arguing that there is a line at which regulation is impractical for a myriad of reasons. My assessment of where that line is, and where Scott sees that line are two completely different assessments. I would also suggest that you and I would disagree. I choose to accept that there is actually a reason for fighting regulation that has a rational basis. That does not mean all of the reasons are rational.

Again, all failures in a system are technically "foreseeable." That does not mean it is rational or feasible to attempt to identify them all because their number is infinite. The question is the level of probability, and I have yet to see you, with all of your 15 years of expertise, tell anyone where that line is. You appear to believe infinite regulation is feasible based on your continued need to provide examples of failures of the system. I am merely trying to point out that your rationale has a glaring weakness. You don't seem to want to hear that from anyone.

 

[buckwheat]

don't become a lawyer

Anybody can find accidents happening all over the world, in various types of economies and under various types of political leadership.

What simplicity and innocence. The French officials were prosecuting company management for criminal negligence. Thanks for proving my point again. Please find one accident where both sides agree it was not foreseeable and preventable.

Got a long winded explanation for that?

No, I have to keep it short for you. The government believed they were guilty of negligence the company got off because apparently the judge uses the same logic as you and Scott.

Presiding Judge Thomas Le Monnyer ruled that there was no certain link between management errors and the explosion.

Certain link? Hey, you know O.J. got off too. There are those that strongly believe he did it.

So, you're saying the company here followed all those regs to a T or that there was an establishment of reasonable doubt?

Oh, lookeee here.

http://www.france24.com/en/20091120...sion-trial-acquittal-azf-france-total-justice

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8370150.stm

That despicable US corporation, uhh I mean French corporation Total won an appeal in the corrupt US, uhhh I mean French court system.

Who'd have thunk it?

Did you read the articles? The company won the actual trial? The French Govt. is going to appeal.

Apparently the government very strongly believes the verdict was wrong and that there was in fact negligence.

It's not like all sides agreed and said, "oh well, there was an unforeseeable, unpreventable accident. " Prosecutors lose their jobs for overzealous prosecution you know.

 

[Anonymous]

Both are corrupt and govt should be trusted more? At the very least there is a profit motive in business. It surley isn't perfect. Tell me what the motive is for govt to do the right thing?

I don't see myself apart from govt. What I don't get is view that more govt is always the solution (to many on this forum). Healthcare, regs, ...whatever.
It's as if people no longer have the ability to think or solve problems. Only the govt can do it, and it's always the fault of some evil business entity.

If you would kindly point to the place where I said government should be trusted more, then I will accept you have anything but a strawman here. The motive for government is provided by the citizens who elect officials, and the motives are endless. Because of that, we must find a place upon that continuum to enact any given policy based on the results of the last election. You seem to believe that the motives of government are always evil ploys to extract liberty from the populace because you have to pay taxes that you don't want to pay. Nobody is saying government is the only solution, but it is part of the solution to our problems, and NOT the sole bearer of responsibility for our problems. You say you see yourself as part of the government, yet your rhetoric is filled with right-winged strawman talking points that rarely if ever actually recognize your part in said government.

I also note that you completely ignored my questions in regards to your responsibility as a consumer of goods. Do you or don't you intentionally pursue your political agenda as a consumer as fervently as you do in your voting? Government is easy to beat on and pretend it is an "other" because avoiding hypocrisy on our part as consumers means you have to be much more informed.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Both are corrupt and govt should be trusted more? At the very least there is a profit motive in business. It surley isn't perfect. Tell me what the motive is for govt to do the right thing?

I don't see myself apart from govt. What I don't get is view that more govt is always the solution (to many on this forum). Healthcare, regs, ...whatever.
It's as if people no longer have the ability to think or solve problems. Only the govt can do it, and it's always the fault of some evil business entity.

Scott sit down, if you are not already. What I am about to tell you may send your entire world into a tailspin. Those books that Ayn Rand wrote were fiction. The altruistic Corporate owner inventor does not really exist in this world, and if he did the shareholders would vote him out in no time.
The highlighted sentence above is what government is suppose to be, an organ for protecting and serving all the citizens, regulating commerce and insuring the health and wellbeing of all its citizens as well. Government is people. Well right now it is more corporation, but the point is it should be people.

 

[Anonymous]

Scott sit down, if you are not already. What I am about to tell you may send your entire world into a tailspin. Those books that Ayn Rand wrote were fiction. The altruistic Corporate owner inventor does not really exist in this world, and if he did the shareholders would vote him out in no time.
The highlighted sentence above is what government is suppose to be, an organ for protecting and serving all the citizens, regulating commerce and insuring the health and wellbeing of all its citizens as well. Government is people. Well right now it is more corporation, but the point is it should be people.

You just made me laugh really hard. Thanks. Excellent post.

 

[buckwheat]

Your thinking is far to black and white here..

Oh, for goodness sakes. You've never been in an industrial environment?

There are standard practices that are followed to a T. These are widely known. When they are not followed, accidents happen, people die, or are severely injured, and environments are damaged.

These things are known from experience and that is why standards are set.

Do you have any idea what "case studies" are? The Challenger Commission is an example of one. It's a text book case of known standards not being followed with foreseeable results. It's not like I'm doing original thinking here. This was a panel of experts and bureaucrats and the problems they uncovered weren't all that technical or obsure.

I am only arguing that there is a line at which regulation is impractical for a myriad of reasons. My assessment of where that line is, and where Scott sees that line are two completely different assessments.

So you too along with Scott, are arrogant enough to do regulation on the fly. It's amazing that you're inserting your own personal opinion into these matters. I've relied on what the experts have said regarding matters such as the Challenger. Why don't you familiarize yourself with real life events.

I would also suggest that you and I would disagree..

But I'm siding with experts. You're siding with your own uninformed opinion.

I choose to accept that there is actually a reason for fighting regulation that has a rational basis..

Invariably it's money. Which of the hundreds of violations the Mine was cited for would you call unimportant?

Again, all failures in a system are technically "foreseeable." That does not mean it is rational or feasible to attempt to identify them all because their number is infinite. ..

Good grief! But after careful consideration, when regulations are then enacted and enforced, don't you think there is usually a good reason for those regs, or they're just a nuisance to the companies?

The question is the level of probability, and I have yet to see you, with all of your 15 years of expertise, tell anyone where that line is..

Hopeless! You do realize that there are precise DOT rules that are enforced saying how many hours a driver can drive in a week and how many hours of rest are required between shifts. The FAA regulates Pilots the same way. These are real issues in the real world and there are penalties for violating them. You don't think there is pressure from management to violate these regs or to overload trucks. Do you realize there are very specific rules regarding loading of trucks and planes. That's because very predictable accidents have occurred when these regs are ignored. You know you just can't put an unlimited amount of dry ice on a plane, and that all dangerous goods have to be identified to very stringent standards. Do you know why?


Because large jets have crashed due to undeclared dangerous goods or improperly loaded or labled materials.

The paperwork and packaging for dangerous goods has to meet very exacting standards. If those standards aren't met, that container or package does not get on the plane. Often these packages are very important and the shipper calls the company to find out WTF happened. His, AOG, aircraft is sitting on the ground, and the important part or shipment is sitting a thousand miles away. Then a senior member of management calls the clerk on the carpet who "bumped" the shipment. Often times that member of management will put pressure on the clerk not to "bump" shipments from that company. There is conflict and jobs are threatened but ultimately the Dangerous Goods specialist is answerable not only to the manager but to the FAA where that clerk personally faces hefty fines. Not only the company, but the employee themselves. You do see a potential conflict here or am I asking too much of you?

You don't think DOT is sitting on the approach road to airports pulling over trucks and inspecting Haz Mat paperwork and checking to see if the truck is overloaded? You don't think there are pressures to overload trucks by management? The driver is held personally accountable and oftentimes their defense is that they were following Federally Mandated Regulations.

You appear to believe infinite regulation is feasible based on your continued need to provide examples of failures of the system. I am merely trying to point out that your rationale has a glaring weakness. You don't seem to want to hear that from anyone.

Infinite? More hysterics!

Need? No, the textbook case of downplaying known risks was what occurred with the Challenger and that was brought up by ChrisE.. Not me. He went and proved exactly what I'm saying.

It's not my rationale! It's the rationale of people in industries who know a lot better than people like you or Scott that want to save money even in light of known and forseeable risks.

 

[Anonymous]

If you would kindly point to the place where I said government should be trusted more, then I will accept you have anything but a strawman here. The motive for government is provided by the citizens who elect officials, and the motives are endless. Because of that, we must find a place upon that continuum to enact any given policy based on the results of the last election. You seem to believe that the motives of government are always evil ploys to extract liberty from the populace because you have to pay taxes that you don't want to pay. Nobody is saying government is the only solution, but it is part of the solution to our problems, and NOT the sole bearer of responsibility for our problems. You say you see yourself as part of the government, yet your rhetoric is filled with right-winged strawman talking points that rarely if ever actually recognize your part in said government.

I also note that you completely ignored my questions in regards to your responsibility as a consumer of goods. Do you or don't you intentionally pursue your political agenda as a consumer as fervently as you do in your voting? Government is easy to beat on and pretend it is an "other" because avoiding hypocrisy on our part as consumers means you have to be much more informed.

Not sure what you are driving at. I'm as likely to avoid purchasing something from GM as well as Wal-Mart but for different reasons. I tend to support local business when I can because I am one. The cost of goods and services is rarely the number one factor in my purchasing habits, but I tend to gravitate towards convenience.

Did that answer your question?